On Monday, 19 September 2022 19:46:53 PDT William Linkmeyer via Std-Proposals
wrote:
> I’m not sure I follow.
>
> If you have the code to build libraries from, then standard library
> versioning is a solvable problem with existing tools.

Then why did you give an example of a library (libstdc++'s std::string
problem) for which the source is available?

> This proposal is meant to address libraries for which the source code does
> not exist or is not inspectable by making available a standard tool to
> express standard compatibility.

There's nothing that can fix developer laziness. Any proposal you make requires
developers to take action. If they don't, then it doesn't solve the problem.

If the source for a given library is not available to me, then it means I'm
paying for it. That means the developers can simply take my money and make the
version that I need for my environment, or I'll stop using their product.

And besides, the source may not be available to me, but it is available to
someone. Therefore, the solution must contemplate source availability anyway.

> Cross-version compatibility is not an issue I anticipate. The opposite, in
> fact, it is meant to make explicit that, say, the `std::string` which my
> library is targeting is associated with C++98 to C++11; explicitly nothing
> afterwards.

How is that different from what we have today?

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
   Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering